Wash. Times Blames Obama's Lack of Hawkishness on Inexperience
The cultish Washington Times today featured a front page tell-all about Barack Obama's military inexperience, and how it has led him to have strange opinions. The Times quoted all sorts of neocon hawks in the military, who believe that Barack Obama's youthful ignorance on national security has led to him to such wild conclusions as "the surge isn't winning the war," "we should withdraw from Iraq at some point" and "the Muslim religion will not bomb America if we act nice to it." The reliable Washington Times, once again, gets to the heart of the election: How can we elect a man so inexperienced that he isn't a neocon?
All wings of the military-industrial complex, objectively, can't understand why Barack would take such terrorist, fringe views:
Still, the mostly conservative retired officers, industry executives and current defense officials interviewed by The Washington Times cite Mr. Obama's lack of experience in national security. They also point to his determination to pull American combat units from Iraq at a time when a troop surge has reduced violence, damaged al Qaeda and allowed the Iraqi government to progress toward Sunni-Shia-Kurd reconciliation.
Yeah, what's up with this college boy? Didn't he learn anything from all those books he read in college?:
No other Obama proposal brings more military criticism than his plan to bring home one to two combat brigades per month from Iraq -- meaning all such units would be out by the end of 2009, his first year in office.
A senior Pentagon official said an Obama swearing-in "will give the Arab street the final victory, the best optics, and the ultimate in bragging rights. They win. We lose."
Did you hear what the military man said? If we elect Barack Obama, they win, and we lose (the various things that we are fighting about). How strange, we haven't seen reporting like this anywhere besides the Washington Times!
Military fears 'unknown quality' [Washington Times]